On 2015-01-05 14:32, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
On 01/05/2015 05:08 AM, David Henningsson wrote:
Second; if you contribute just a one or two line fix, then probably the biggest
issue with the CLA is the paperwork. And
as long as your contributions are tiny compared to the total project, sure. One
can just give the code away.
A one or two line fix does not actually require the CLA. Only contributions of a
"substantial nature" (ie. a fix that
is not 10 lines or fewer or could not easily be described over the telephone to
someone familiar with the code) require
the paperwork.
If you're just proposing spelling fixes in the documentation or a one-liner to
use the newer file name for an icon, it
should get accepted upstream without fuss. If you contribute such small fixes
frequently, the sum total will exceed the
threshold and you will need a CLA on file for additional contributions. This
is a judgement call on behalf of the
project manager, and the goal is to balance the inconvenience (to a
contributor) of the CLA against the inconvenience
(to Canonical) of not having the CLA.
I assume the lack of an exact and clear measure of whether a patch
requires a CLA makes people err on the side of caution, requiring CLAs
for where it should not be needed.
That is a problem for both sides, i e, not only for the project manager,
but also if you're contributor unwilling to sign the CLA, you would not
write the patch in the first place if there was a risk it would not get
in due to the CLA requirement.
There isn't a software you can feed with patches and it outputs yes or
no depending on whether a CLA is needed or not? :-)
--
David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.
https://launchpad.net/~diwic
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
